01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Vice Mayor Thorne questioned what staff recommends the Council do in response to this and he also suggested another approach to approve the fee so the MC can go forward with it, and Pleasanton could put its own resolution forward to indicate that no List B items will be approved until List A is done. City Manager Fialho said there are two options; express support for the fee adjustment but defer implementation until such time an expenditure plan can be developed that prioritizes List A over List B, to approve the fee now which allows the region to start implementing the fee structure and, in this instance if it goes beyond one year, that revenue would be collected without it being earmarked, and the Council can then develop an expenditure plan that ensures List A has priority. Councilmember McGovern said in the Triangle Study, State Route 84 was also on the list and it was dropped in the last vote by the majority. She felt assurances were needed for it to be maintained as a priority. She suggested asking them to tell us what those fees are being collected for, what are the priorities, and if they go along with MC's original concurrence, she would be more comfortable. Mr. Tassano noted that the List A projects are not actually prioritize but simply listed as eleven projects; however, Councilmember Sullivan felt it could easily be moved to the B list. Mayor Hosterman said she also finds it disconcerting that regional partners have not heard the importance of State Route 84 to Pleasanton, and she requested that they re-concede their direction, agreed with fellow Councilmembers to not vote to approve the fee. The public hearing was opened. Steve Brozosky questioned if the Triangle Study was completed and/or when it was disbanded. He voiced concern in that State Route 84 is of significant importance to Pleasanton, it needs to be done for the City's traffic circulation to work, and he suggested not approving the fee. He suggested voting at the same time on information about what the fee is and what the strategic expenditure plan is. Scott Perkins, Chairman, Tri Valley Transportation Council, supports Highway 84 as being on the A list, understands it is a crucial part of Pleasanton's circulation, said the language in the resolutions of the other agencies is not binding on the TVTC, and what is binding is the fee structure. He said it is important to move forward with the fee structure due to developers needing to know what their fees are in developing projects. If delayed, there is uncertainty in their project planning. They do currently have a strategic expenditure plan which was approved which they are now proceeding with. They are not spending money on any List B project until a new expenditure plan is approved and nothing will be passed without the Council's concurrence regardless of what Dublin, Alameda County or Livermore state in their resolutions. Section 11 of the JPA addresses this assurance and reiterated that List B technically does not exist because only List A is in the current expenditure plan. Councilmember Cook-Kallio confirmed that the TVTC was currently operating under its current approved expenditure plan; that List A items were only in that plan; the only thing binding in the resolution is approval of the fees, and Mr. Perkins estimates it would take about a year to develop and have approved a List B expenditure plan. Councilmember Sullivan questioned if the additional fees could be spent on the original expenditure plan or would it have to wait until the new plan is approved. Mr. Tassano said there is an existing expenditure plan so if the City's fees increase; this could be done by unanimous vote. They do not have to adjust the fee list; there is still $10 million left in unfunded allocation in the existing SEP. He said the existing SEP goes out to 2016 or 2017, but the way fees were City Council Minutes 8 October 21, 2008